I don't like articles setting up their analysis on how the elections went one way or another as "winners and losers". Sure there are winners and losers, but the article is not really focusing on that, it's more about why the author/others think the election went one way or another. The analysis provided though is pretty logical.

Everything in this piece seemed factually correct, although nobody will mistake it for a dispassionate recital of percentages and statistics. Instead, it's an attempt to *interpret* the results (“Many of the questions going forward are going to be what this all means…”). I *assume* the writers prefer the outcomes they noticed, but since the topics were forecasts rather than rallying cries, it's possible a clear-eyed person who personally opposed all the possible further outcomes could have written the same thing. There were 7 topics; each has a clearly labeled speculative prognostication (“ this *doesn’t* *necessarily* mean…McConnell is doomed…”, “ gun control groups have a *potential* majority in the state legislature…”, “it’s *possible* even more cities and states will consider…”, “wins in Virginia *could* also mean…”, etc. (My *emphasis* added). Will other cities besides NYC adopt ranked-choice (aka, instant-runoff) voting? Will Virginia's new majority ratify the ERA, becoming the 38th state to do so? These are interesting sidelights to the usual partisan record-keeping we see.

This piece is definitely written from the perspective of a hopeful Democratic voter, which is why I reviewed it as Political Agenda. With that said, if you can get over the partisan cheerleading, there is a lot of solid context and a good overview of the election results.

This is an Op Ed, it is ENTIRELY opinion. This entertainment article is not newsworthy at all.